[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I intend to make a motion at our next meeting to spend a good portion of our 2016 surplus to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage.  

Not knowing our final numbers at this time lends some uncertainty to that number, but I would like to start the bidding at $150,000.  That amount ought to leave us in a very favorable position as to our ongoing reserve for unforeseen expenses over the next few years.

Does anyone want to offer a lower/higher amount?  If so, what is your reasoning.

Thanks and 

Live Free,

 

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Sam you have my full support.  I would like to join with you on this.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I don't have a number in mind, but my preference is to look at it from the other side first:  how much did we short ourselves last year?  We should obviously pay that much extra this year as a starting point.  (I'd say that even if doing so pushed our reserves down; we should tighten our belts in that circumstance.)  However, it seems that we can pay that much and more, so how much more?

Well, here's one answer - imagine we, as an LNC, had absolutely no ideas.  We just couldn't think of a single thing we want to do beyond what we're already doing.  Then, obviously, we should pay as much as we can towards the mortgage, get down to bare subsistence, and hope that when it's paid off, that LNC is more creative than we are.

On the other hand, we could believe that we have IDEAS, BIG IDEAS, LOTS OF IDEAS, and that it is vitally important that we act now, not those jerks who might be on the LNC in the future.  In that case, we should pay what we shorted ourselves last year and leave it at that.

I don't think either of the two answers above is correct, but the point is, where along that spectrum are we?  Also, what pressing things are there that need to be done now?  I'd suggest this:  we just received record Presidential vote totals and saw a large spike in membership.  It would be appropriate to take action to retain the new members, and attempt to get more commitment from those voters.  Perhaps a survey of our new membership is in order so we have a better idea of why they joined and what they want.  

After all, wasn't enhanced cash flow one of the selling points that convinced a previous LNC to purchase a {noun deleted to avoid controversy}?  Isn't it also the case that, if we adhere strictly to the Wiener Rule, there will be no balloon payment due?  Granted, of course, any delay in payments changes the calculation, so we'd need to pay somewhat more than we were short last year to continue that rule.  Granted, too, that every additional payment will decrease overall money spent on interest.

In 2017, I'd like to see us do more to help candidates coordinate and build ground-games.  I'm hoping to continue over the term to promote my proposals regarding appointments and "let national be national," both of which take money.  I'm sure others have ideas, which can either out-compete mine or be done simultaneously, that will also cost money.  

Even so, I'd like to pay substantially more than what we owe ourselves towards the mortgage.  I would also note, as I pointed out at the e-meeting, that this year's enhanced revenue hasn't been across the board.  In fact, recurring gifts, last I checked, were below budget.  I'd encourage optimism, and I absolutely will not say "well, we'll never see a year like this again" but a lack of recurring gifts does raise the possibility of coming back down.  If I believed we'd never see such success again, and that we were just returning to normal, I'd say throw as much of it as possible at paying down the dead pledge.  If recurring gifts were up, I'd probably say the same thing.  I think, though, that what we do now will determine if we will continue on an upward trajectory, or instead return to 'normal,' and that this might be worth some investment.

Before committing myself to a number, though, I'll want to hear from the Treasurer.  I might also favor making this decision after the budget is approved.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com> wrote:

I intend to make a motion at our next meeting to spend a good portion of our 2016 surplus to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage.  

Not knowing our final numbers at this time lends some uncertainty to that number, but I would like to start the bidding at $150,000.  That amount ought to leave us in a very favorable position as to our ongoing reserve for unforeseen expenses over the next few years.

Does anyone want to offer a lower/higher amount?  If so, what is your reasoning.

Thanks and 

Live Free,

 

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Though these numbers will have changed since October, at that time our principal was $430,598.33.   It appears that we budgeted in 2015 $67,300 for Building Fund revenues to pay $60,000 towards the mortgage (as per the Policy Manual) and $7,300 for a house letter (I don't know what that means), but only raised $22,435.63.  Was that $22,435.63 paid?  Or did it go into shorted reserves?  Also have we already paid additional principle yet this year?

I believe Robert Kraus said we paid $27,500 extra towards principal in 2015 and $22,000 extra toward principal in 2016.  If this is correct, we were short $32,500 in 2015 as per the Policy Manual, and I do not see a Policy Manual provision for even-numbered years to make additional principal payments.

Tim in October said he believe he would be comfortable with a figure of about $200,000, and that is the figure that comes to my mind as a total for the two years, at a minimum, so that would be right around Sam's initial bid of $150,000 (more precisely it would be $150,500).  That would be the minimum I would like to see.

I echo Joshua's concern of other projects we may wish to do, but this was already decided to be a priority back when we got the mortgage, and I do not like the way it seems we make promises and then... are like, oh well.... such and such. That is what I see as happening so far with the website, and if we made this priority, let's fulfill it first.  We passed a Policy Manual provision to "pay off the office mortgage as quickly as possible" so let's do it.  And set a fiscal example.  On a related note on "let national be national" that keeps getting used... to borrow a phrase that Joshua likes to use in other contexts, I don't find it helpful as it is "content-less" :)  I don't think anyone wants to have national be other than what it should be- it is what it should be that is precisely the issue.  Slogans aren't helpful in planning.  I am of a view that the LNC is too hands off in some things, and that there are things that we must have as LNC level decisions and that is "national being national" and I have made some of those things clear in the website discussion in which I think we seriously abrogated some duty.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

A house letter is a fundraising letter.  Robert can provide more details, but my understanding is that the $22,453 was paid.  It was, however, less than the $60,000 we were supposed to pay.

You are correct, the Wiener Rule was mandated only for odd-numbered years.  While I have not run the numbers myself, my understanding was that, if followed, that rule would eliminate the balloon payment and amortize the loan over its lifetime.  The effect of the rule was to remove the enhanced cash flow in odd-numbered years, where it was believed it would be less helpful, but maintain that benefit in even-numbered years.  In odd years, we would pay the same as we were paying in rent; in even years, we would pay less.  

That was, to my understanding, the spirit.  (I was, of course, not present when it was adopted, but I was present the first time it applied.)  As I mentioned earlier, when we were preparing the 2015 budget, there was discussion about eliminating that rule, which I strongly opposed.  In the end, we did not change or eliminate it, which in my opinion is a good thing.  We did budget the money.  Unfortunately, the way the rule operates does not guarantee that the money will be paid, and it was not.  I would be open to strengthening the rule for the future, but keep in mind that standing rules having their application outside the meeting context cannot be suspended, so some care is needed not to lock ourselves in too tightly.  

In any case, yes, it was decided that this would be prioritized, and I agree fully with prioritizing it.  That's why I began by saying that I considered paying back what we shorted last year (plus interest) to be the absolute minimum.  I don't see the adoption of that goal, though, as meaning that we won't expand in other areas until it is paid off, just as it obviously doesn't mean that we can't have staff until it is paid off.  If we followed the rule as stated there, and as it is intended, we'd achieve the goal of paying it off before the 10 year balloon payment.  "As soon as possible" is unclear, particularly when phrased as a goal, but I don't think it means we need to pay all the spare cash we've got - it certainly doesn't preclude that, either.  My suggestion, again, is that we regard paying our Wiener Rule commitments as inflexible - that's the difference for 2015 and the full amount for 2017 - budget for other programs we regard as important now, and then pay the difference towards the dead pledge, rather than trying to determine how much more to pay above Wiener Rule commitments before determining what else we'll do.  Of course, though, when decided how much to budget to other programs, we should have in mind that everything we budget means we'll be doing less to pay down the mortgage, so the threshold for adoption of a project should be not only that it's worth the cost, but that it's worth the cost plus interest over time, just as if we had to borrow the money to finance it.  

To repeat a point I've made before, we've got to think more strategically when we budget, and reference budget lines when we spend money.  I think it encourages the wrong sort of thinking, and confuses people, try to decide whether or not to spend X on Y out of "the universe" rather than spend X on Y out of the budget line for things like Y, which is Z.  

Regarding "LNBN," I'm not sure how much you're hearing it tossed around.  Since it's my phrase, I guess I hope you're hearing it tossed around a lot, but I've only seen it tossed around by me.  In any case, yes, it's a slogan and content-less without context.  I just meant it to indicate the thrust of the things I want to see us do, which I see as "those things that require a national reach and organization."  The one I harp on the most is appointments, but I'd also include doing more outreach to the DC Press Corps, certain lobbying operations, and a few other things.  I didn't specify here, because I wasn't arguing here for anything specific, just saying that I expect over the term to introduce motions which, if adopted, would cost various amounts of money, and that I think others will do so as well. It is not about board governance per say; that's another pet issue of mine, but a separate one.  I do think more care as regards governance can lead to clearer goals and better facilitate their achievement, as well as clarify what goal-setting means, but that's an indirect connection.

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you for clarifying what a house letter is.  I meant to inquire before.  So it seems like my figures are roughly correct, so I will be looking for a minimum $150,000 paydown which is well within the range that Tim said before we could handle.

And I have expressed before that I think "oh we budget but don't have to actually pay" is pretzel twisting by the LNC of expert level.  I would favor strengthening the rule to stop that gaming.  And I think "as soon as possible" being made into anything other than the most we can do is also unacceptable, but I suppose this will be the subject of debate.  I think members thought this would be a lot more rigourously applied and would understandably feel, and I would if I step back and put my member hat on, that the LNC is not doing what they expected. Which is to get rid of this debt as soon as possible... I feel like I am Alice - The question is whether we can make words mean so many different things.

On LNBN, yes, I hear it from you.  And I don't think turning us into a Washington ladies and lads who lunch is the answer - but we have disagreed on that before (and on whether only things that "require" - another "flexible" word - a national reach and organization is all we should be doing), and that is a different subject.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would also support an amendment to that effect.  I might try to draw up some language, but I don't know that I'll do that prior to December.

On the rest, I disagree, but don't have much else to add at the moment that would not be repetitive.

Joshua A. Katz

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

But Joshua, if you and I are not repetitive, we disappoint everyone :)  

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I will call your $150,000 and raise it to $207,500. I request we add 20 minutes to the December meeting agenda for a motion to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage.

The mortgage's loan rate is 4.85% with a balloon payment at ten years, which is in July 24, 2024. Robert was kind enough to furnish the attached load amortization spreadsheet. I ran five scenarios on it to get the amount of interest we will pay from December 2016 to when the balloon payment is due, and to get the amount of the balloon payment that will be due at that time.

Without any more prepayments (not paying an extra $60,000 on odd-numbered years):
Interest: $139,400.40
Balloon payment due 7/24/2024: $301,040.34

With the current policy of paying an extra $60,000 on odd-numbered years:
Interest: $84,900.77
Balloon payment due 7/24/2024: $6,540.71

Paying an additional $207,500 in the December payment, and not paying extra in future years:
Interest: $45,751.59
Balloon payment due 7/24/2024: $0.00

Paying an additional $150,00 in the December payment, and paying an extra $60,000 on odd-numbered years:
Interest: $32,805.22
Mortgage gets paid off July 2021.

Paying an additional $207,500 in the December payment, and paying an extra $60,000 on odd-numbered years:
Interest: $19,879.20
Mortgage gets paid off May 2020.

As you can see, paying $207,500 in December will eliminate having a balloon payment in 2024 and will save at least $39k in interest. If we keep the Weiner rule, it will save $65k in interest and have the mortgage paid off four years early. The targeted Reserve is the sum of all monthly occupancy, labor and governance expenses, which comes to $45,292. At the end of October, the reserve was at $415,669, so I am comfortable with paying $207,500, even if next year's budget has a large deficit. We will have new reserve number before the meeting.

The trust from a bequest has $167,404. We have been taking the maximum allowable amount out each year for the general fund. A law passed December 2014 now allows national political committees to have a separate segregated building fund with its own contribution limit of three times the limit for the general fund. We have not done this before, because we needed the bequest for the general fund, but we can transfer up to $100,200 from the bequest to the building fund and use those funds toward making a payment on the mortgage principal.

My preference is to pay at least $207,500 toward the mortgage principal to save on interest payments and to ensure no balloon payment. If that passes, then I would favor reducing the policy to budget an extra $60k on odd years.

Tim Hagan

---

From: Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:11 AM
Subject: [Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Tim,

That sounds like the smart plan.  Future Libertarians will thank us.  I support your higher amount.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Tim,

 

Your plan sets a good example of fiscal responsibility for all Libertarians. I also support your higher amount.

 

Thoughts?

 

The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now

 

~David Pratt Demarest

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

All -

 

While paying off the building faster is a great goal, we may have other priorities.

 

Specifically, we have 12 states without ballot access at this time, and we have an IT infrastructure that's from the last century - literally.  These things will take money to remedy.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hi Ken, while I appreciate that, our Policy Manual puts the building pay-off as a priority.  We can always find an excuse to put that off.  I will not.  If we are going to expect our government to follow commitments and shed debt, we must.  The IT infrastructure that exists - existed at the same time we got the mortgage.  We sold the idea of the mortgage to members on a certain committement and vision, and I fully intend to keep it.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Further the bequest rules make it a no-brainer in my view.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I'm just pointing out that there are other items that also need attention.  As an alternate, I probably won't get a vote anyway.

 

If we are to take the strictest interpretation of 2.03.17, we should lay off all of the staff and put their salaries toward the building debt as well. However, I would suggest that doing so would be a foolish approach.

 

Putting off IT infrastructure upgrades is only going to make the inevitable more painful in the long-term.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

No frankly that is a ludicrous interpretation. And paying any more interest that we have to in member money (OPM) is even moreso.  This is why members view this body with distrust.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

My contention is that there may be other priorities upon which a portion of the proposed $207,500 spending on the office mortgage should be spent. I included the examples of Ballot Access and IT Infrastructure.

Your contention is that the priority must be given to the paying off of the mortgage, because the Policy Manual says so.

 

The Policy Manual states in Section 2.03.17:

 

"It shall be the goal of the LNC to completely pay off the office mortgage as quickly as possible, and in any case prior to the due date of the 10-year balloon payment. Towards that end the LNC shall budget a minimum of $60,000 in each odd-numbered year to pay down the principal until the mortgage balance is zero. Fundraising for this specific purpose shall be made a high priority. This provision does not preclude additional fundraising and prepayments in even-numbered years. "  (emphasis added)

 

The portion of the policy manual highlighted above seems to be that to which you reference when you made your statement.

 

Additionally, you state that you are unwilling to give higher priority to the IT Infrastructure, stating that the infrastructure was a decade old when the building was purchased.

 

First, the infrastructure was less out-of-date than it is now. It continues to get further and further out of date.  We continue to use hacks and other non-standard practices to accomplish goals with the existing infrastructure, rather than upgrade.  There is a real cost to this.  LPedia's decay is an easy example of what happens when things don't get upgraded - upgrading MediaWiki to a newer version is incredibly painful at this point.

 

Second, IT infrastructure upgrades would actually make staff and affiliate parties more productive. Imagine if LP National could, as part of a broader upgrade, provide basic services to affiliate parties such as email services. Instead of 52 organizations all trying to figure out how to manage email, we could upgrade National's email infrastructure and provide email services to all 51 affiliates. 

 

Third, there are real security issues that do need to be addressed.  There are security patches released almost every single day. We're approximately 3000 days behind on security patches on a few pieces of our infrastructure. 

 

Now, if we are to forgo some projects with clear benefits, like IT Infrastructure improvements, because the Policy Manual tells us we must pay down the mortgage before all other things, then what is ludicrous with suggesting using the staff budget for further paying down the mortgage?

 

Certainly, I think it's a bad idea.  But I also think foregoing other important tasks in favor of paying down the mortgage is also a bad idea.

 

That's just my $0.02 on the matter.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Now that wasn't the entirety of my argument, but I am not getting into another LNC spitting match.  Interested members and readers can go through my comments and see what I said- the policy manual was a big part, but a part and not the entirety.  It is indeed less out of date then than now.  And something obviously know as the passage of time and aging is a known quantity.  As is debt and interest, something Libertarians are supposed to model fiscal responsibilities for.  And having not transferred 83% of our data certainly will look to our members like throwing good money after bad.  

This is selling the members a bill of goods.  Just like they are suspecting on the website data loss.  We have not inspired confidence, and I am not about to vote to further sell our word down the river.  The ludicruousness of the proposition that a reading would mean to fire staff if my reading that surpluses need to be given priority there is as self-evident to me as the idea that we also do not need to sell ourselves into slavery as committee persons.  If it is not self-evident, then the sky is a different colour in my world.

With the data loss (more accurately lack of transfer - and there is still a folfer of files from the 2006 site that were supposed to be restored and not) and what I and enough others see as mismanagement of the website transfer, if I were an affiliate, I would not be entrusting my affiliate's email to a natonal-provided service.  Let's get the website straightened out and then perhaps other investments will be in order.  

And certainly that is not a bigger priority than already incurred debt.  There is ALWAYS something great to spend money on.  We are selling the efforts of future Libertarians just like our country is selling the future of today's children.  No.  I will not do that.  If we can't elimiante our own debt we have zero business thinking we can tell others that is how they have to live.  

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ditto. I wasn't in favor of buying the office space, because the LNC that approved the buy didn't go about seeking the right kind of space for our needs (e.g. one with plenty of room for LNC meetings so we're not wasting our members' money on meeting spaces, one that can readily serve as an activist-oriented community center, etc.) – but having bought it, I favor our being fiscally responsible by paying down the mortgage as soon as possible (i.e. Tim's fifth scenario). The idea of taking the money out of the bequest fund and putting it into the building fund in order to more readily do this sounds smart too. It's easier of course to follow the well-trodden legislative path of spending more money than we really have, deferring non-mandatory payments, maintenance expenses, and so on, but that would not be setting a good example. 

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                  (415) 625-FREE

                                    @StarchildSF

On Nov 27, 2016, at 4:42 PM, David Demarest wrote:

Tim,

 

Your plan sets a good example of fiscal responsibility for all Libertarians. I also support your higher amount.

 

Thoughts?

 

The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now

 

~David Pratt Demarest

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

<Untitled attachment 01613.txt>

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hello LNC members,

Concerning the current discussion on paying down the mortgage, I've attached below a couple of emails from 2014 and 2015 which may be helpful, along with an amortization spreadsheet that you can play with to see the effect of early payments.  The 8/9/2014 email was a response to questions about the 10-year balloon payment.  The 3/29/2015 email was in regards to the timing of early payments, and why it was better to make such payments as soon as possible to save on interest.  (That is indeed what Robert Kraus subsequently did.)

When I and several other of the LNC members originally voted to authorize the purchase of an office, we did so on the condition that every effort would be made to pay off the mortgage before the balloon payment came due.  Of course nobody could guarantee what our future finances would look like and what actions future LNCs might take, but we adopted the Policy Manual provision in an attempt to nail things down as tightly as possible.

At the very least, the LNC should make good the remaining portion of last year's budgeted $60,000 which we lacked the funds for at the time.  If we can afford to make an additional early payment this year due to our improved financial condition, that would be great.  However, the amount of such an expenditure should be weighed against other important needs.  For example, I would hate to see our membership and fundraising numbers sharply drop back down next year because we failed to adequately invest in membership renewals and new acquisitions.  Paying down the mortgage should remain a high priority, but "high priority" does not mean it automatically takes priority over everything else.

Dan Wiener

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wie...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Subject: Prepayment on office mortgage
To: Wes Benedict <wes.be...@lp.org>, Robert Kraus <robert...@lp.org>
Cc: "lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org" <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>

Hi Wes,

In answer to your question, I dug out the attached amortization spreadsheet for the office mortgage.  By changing the value of the additional bi-annual payment in cell B9, you can see what the remaining balance will be after ten years in cell B12.  For example, if we make an extra $60,000 payment in December of odd-numbered years (as now specified in the Policy Manual), the balance would be paid off in less than ten years (i.e., cell B12 shows a negative balance of $6,808.21).

If you zero out cell B9 so there are no extra payments towards the principal, the ten-year balloon balance is $367,741.21 in cell B12.  If we were to instead make an extra $10,000 payment in April, 2015 (i.e., subtract an extra $10,000 in cell F16) it would reduce the ten-year balance to $352,282 in cell B12 (a savings of $15,459.21).  On the other hand, if that same $10,000 extra payment is delayed three months to July, 2015 (i.e., subtract the $10,000 in cell F19) it produces a ten-year balance of $352,467.94 (a savings of $15,273.27).  So the cost (at the end of the ten years) of delaying a $10,000 payment by three months is $185.94.  You can play with the spreadsheet to plug in other extra payments at other times to see what the alternative results will be.

The basic conclusion is that paying down the mortgage as soon as the funds come in to the building fund, rather than waiting to do so twice a year, will save us a few hundred dollars over the long tern (especially when done early in the ten-year period).  It's not a huge difference, but it's not nothing.  However, don't empty out the building fund if there's a potential for other expenses associated with the office move.

Dan Wiener

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wie...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Financial woes
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org

I only have time for a quick comment right now.  We do not "have a balloon payment hanging over our heads."  That balloon payment isn't due for another ten years, at which time the principal will have been reduced to $367,741 if we do nothing else but pay the monthly mortgage (which is much less than our previous office lease).  At that time we could deal with the balloon payment by either (1) Refinancing the remaining amount, or (2) Having another big fundraising drive which would only need to raise the same amount we already raised for the purchase, or (3) Sell the office, which would have a large amount of equity, even if real estate prices declined from the $850,000 purchase price instead of rising.  We made a large enough down payment that we do not have to worry about our loan ever being under water.

Even that is a worst-case scenario.  I authored the change to the Policy Manual which requires us to budget an additional $60,000 to pay down the principal in every odd-numbered (i.e., non-election) year, when we can mount pay-off-the-mortgage fundraising drives without interfering with ballot access priorities.  As I showed in the attached spreadsheet, the result of that will be to completely eliminate the balloon payment at the end of the ten years.

Dan Wiener

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

My goal isn't to pull something over on people.  If nothing else, know that I am open with my personal thoughts on matters -- as you may have noticed -- and I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm a Libertarian; I don't believe in using force or fraud.

 

There are other IT issues beyond the website that I dare not mention on a public list; things that range from embarrassing to disabling. I'll be more than happy to discuss these issues in person in December. 

 

The new IT committee is taking over from a previous committee with an entirely different personnel makeup.  The new IT Committee, such as it exists at the moment, is far from ignoring the calls for repairs and changes to the website. This is a priority of everyone involved.  This is currently being done under staff direction, and they are working on it.  The website continues to be populated with important information, and will continue to evolve and have more information added/returned, in addition to other important website changes. (Ironically, I was trying to find out exactly when the building was purchased and couldn't because that information wasn't brought over. Heh.)  In sum, the website will get fixed to the best of our ability. 

 

But if all the discretionary income gets spent on the mortgage (which is not the worst way to spend it) then there won't be an opportunity to get other fixes in place.  And that's just IT.  I know there are Ballot Access drives in our future in 2017 - Arkansas and Ohio, specifically - and those won't be cheap.  Arkansas will be about $37,500 and Ohio will be about $255,000, based on 2016 validity rates and assuming no volunteer signatures or other sources of funding (which there will be, of course).

 

In my opinion, we need to really leverage 2016 to get a record-breaking amount of fundraising in the "after-year".  

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-11-27 23:26, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Now that wasn't the entirety of my argument, but I am not getting into another LNC spitting match.  Interested members and readers can go through my comments and see what I said- the policy manual was a big part, but a part and not the entirety.  It is indeed less out of date then than now.  And something obviously know as the passage of time and aging is a known quantity.  As is debt and interest, something Libertarians are supposed to model fiscal responsibilities for.  And having not transferred 83% of our data certainly will look to our members like throwing good money after bad.  

 

This is selling the members a bill of goods.  Just like they are suspecting on the website data loss.  We have not inspired confidence, and I am not about to vote to further sell our word down the river.  The ludicruousness of the proposition that a reading would mean to fire staff if my reading that surpluses need to be given priority there is as self-evident to me as the idea that we also do not need to sell ourselves into slavery as committee persons.  If it is not self-evident, then the sky is a different colour in my world.

 

With the data loss (more accurately lack of transfer - and there is still a folfer of files from the 2006 site that were supposed to be restored and not) and what I and enough others see as mismanagement of the website transfer, if I were an affiliate, I would not be entrusting my affiliate's email to a natonal-provided service.  Let's get the website straightened out and then perhaps other investments will be in order.  

 

And certainly that is not a bigger priority than already incurred debt.  There is ALWAYS something great to spend money on.  We are selling the efforts of future Libertarians just like our country is selling the future of today's children.  No.  I will not do that.  If we can't elimiante our own debt we have zero business thinking we can tell others that is how they have to live.  

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

My contention is that there may be other priorities upon which a portion of the proposed $207,500 spending on the office mortgage should be spent. I included the examples of Ballot Access and IT Infrastructure.

Your contention is that the priority must be given to the paying off of the mortgage, because the Policy Manual says so.

 

The Policy Manual states in Section 2.03.17:

 

"It shall be the goal of the LNC to completely pay off the office mortgage as quickly as possible, and in any case prior to the due date of the 10-year balloon payment. Towards that end the LNC shall budget a minimum of $60,000 in each odd-numbered year to pay down the principal until the mortgage balance is zero. Fundraising for this specific purpose shall be made a high priority. This provision does not preclude additional fundraising and prepayments in even-numbered years. "  (emphasis added)

 

The portion of the policy manual highlighted above seems to be that to which you reference when you made your statement.

 

Additionally, you state that you are unwilling to give higher priority to the IT Infrastructure, stating that the infrastructure was a decade old when the building was purchased.

 

First, the infrastructure was less out-of-date than it is now. It continues to get further and further out of date.  We continue to use hacks and other non-standard practices to accomplish goals with the existing infrastructure, rather than upgrade.  There is a real cost to this.  LPedia's decay is an easy example of what happens when things don't get upgraded - upgrading MediaWiki to a newer version is incredibly painful at this point.

 

Second, IT infrastructure upgrades would actually make staff and affiliate parties more productive. Imagine if LP National could, as part of a broader upgrade, provide basic services to affiliate parties such as email services. Instead of 52 organizations all trying to figure out how to manage email, we could upgrade National's email infrastructure and provide email services to all 51 affiliates. 

 

Third, there are real security issues that do need to be addressed.  There are security patches released almost every single day. We're approximately 3000 days behind on security patches on a few pieces of our infrastructure. 

 

Now, if we are to forgo some projects with clear benefits, like IT Infrastructure improvements, because the Policy Manual tells us we must pay down the mortgage before all other things, then what is ludicrous with suggesting using the staff budget for further paying down the mortgage?

 

Certainly, I think it's a bad idea.  But I also think foregoing other important tasks in favor of paying down the mortgage is also a bad idea.

 

That's just my $0.02 on the matter.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-11-27 22:35, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

No frankly that is a ludicrous interpretation. And paying any more interest that we have to in member money (OPM) is even moreso.  This is why members view this body with distrust.

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

 

I'm just pointing out that there are other items that also need attention.  As an alternate, I probably won't get a vote anyway.

 

If we are to take the strictest interpretation of 2.03.17, we should lay off all of the staff and put their salaries toward the building debt as well. However, I would suggest that doing so would be a foolish approach.

 

Putting off IT infrastructure upgrades is only going to make the inevitable more painful in the long-term.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-11-27 22:06, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Further the bequest rules make it a no-brainer in my view.

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ken, while I appreciate that, our Policy Manual puts the building pay-off as a priority.  We can always find an excuse to put that off.  I will not.  If we are going to expect our government to follow commitments and shed debt, we must.  The IT infrastructure that exists - existed at the same time we got the mortgage.  We sold the idea of the mortgage to members on a certain committement and vision, and I fully intend to keep it.

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

 

All -

 

While paying off the building faster is a great goal, we may have other priorities.

 

Specifically, we have 12 states without ballot access at this time, and we have an IT infrastructure that's from the last century - literally.  These things will take money to remedy.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There is no proposal to spend "all" of the discretionary monies.

And Hagan pointed out this is a way we can have access to the bulk of a bequest that the donor certainly wished we had access to.

The bequest money isn't available in that amount now for this OR that.  It is available for this.

Hagan's last option is the most prudent and responsible and does not require anything like an "all" scenario and doesn't burden the next decade of Libertarians with interest that the policy manual urged us to avoid in making more than the 60K extra- and here with the bequest we have the opportunity to access over 100K and have an unexpected windfall in new members.

If any other priority is given as well - new member retention must be up there as mentioned in emails leading up to the Sept meeting.

As for the website - well members were told that in 2006 too, and that data is still waiting. 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I would further note- if we make this payment now and make NO additional payments (which I do not support) because the 60k is needed next year (odd numbered year) - we will have freed future Libertarians from the balloon payment AND an amount in interest that would pay a good chunk of a ballot access drive.  In every scenario, this is the right choice.  And we would have only two more policy manual extra payments - 2017 and 2019- and the mortgage would be paid in full just by the 2020 election- a fantastic example for others.  We will have set up the next LNC for success.

And our fiscal responsibility can be used in our new member retention program as they can trust we are wise with funds.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I guess it depends on who your target audience is.  When I walk into a shop and their IT infrastructure is a decade old, my immediate thought is that the company doesn't have their priorities in order.  Certainly, I'm biased in that regard.  Smaller manufacturing businesses are notorious from being way out of date.

 

The Democratic Party provides websites for their candidates for a nominal fee. Why?  Because that way campaigns can focus on issues and real politicking, not spending excessive amounts of time on back-office work. They're out knocking on doors and building their base.

 

The Republican Party, through the Kochs, is building a massive database of voters for their Big Data project. Why?  Because that way they know what issues drive voters. They can micro-target messaging, making their outreach and GOTV more efficient.

 

The Libertarian Party currently has a mailing list that sends everything to a Google list so that people can subscribe to the Google list to watch.

 

If we are to appeal to the Millenial generation, we can't be running on a 286 in a basement.  Once upon a time, the LP was ahead of the game when it came to technology.  We have stagnated and let our competition overtake us. If our primary political opponents are crushing us on the phones and at the door, how do we ever expect to win?

 

When I became chair of LPKY in 2007, we had no IT infrastructure. We had a website that was put in place by the previous chair, that cost too much money, was poorly organized, and didn't do the job.  Thankfully, the situation isn't exactly parallel - while there are problems, we don't have to start over from scratch. But it will take time and investment to get the website to where it needs to be. That will happen.  Likewise, other parts of our operation need to have similar focus. 

 

I'm all about paying down debt. I absolutely love it, conceptually. I just don't want to see us cripple the party in 2017 in order to achieve the goal of paying off that debt.  

 

So here's what I'd propose, if we want to put over $200K toward the mortgage. Let's do a 2-for-1 donation match. We put $60K in the budget, as required. Subtracted from the proposed $207,500, that leaves $147,500. For ease of numbers, let's round that up to $50,000.  So, if we can raise $50,000 specifically for paying off the building, we will put $100,000 as the match.  Let's let our membership determine the projects on which they want us to spend the money.  

 

Does that seem reasonable? 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

No it doesn't.  We have the 100K from the bequest that isn't part of our fundraising windfall.  We have the deficit from the last payment to catch up- putting us st around 150K.  Our policy manual - urges us- on our own- to get ahead.  Putting the extra amount ahead is what is reasonable and what I will be supporting.

No one has suggested there is not money for other things and this insures saved money for other things.  We can do a fundraiser next year with our fiscally responsible choice in Dec as a selling point centerpiece.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hi Ken,

 

I don’t doubt the sincerity of your thoughts regarding mortgage payments versus other priorities.

 

However, can a parallel be drawn between your suggested deferral of accelerated mortgage payments in favor of “other important tasks” such as IT security upgrades, and government’s deferral of balancing the budget so they can pursue “more important” (vote generating) social justice projects?

I just want to be sure I understand your reasoning and its consequences. J

 

Thoughts?

 

The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now

 

~David Pratt Demarest

 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-busine...@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 10:26 PM
To: Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org>
Cc: Demarest, David P. <david.d...@firstdata.com>; Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

 

Now that wasn't the entirety of my argument, but I am not getting into another LNC spitting match.  Interested members and readers can go through my comments and see what I said- the policy manual was a big part, but a part and not the entirety.  It is indeed less out of date then than now.  And something obviously know as the passage of time and aging is a known quantity.  As is debt and interest, something Libertarians are supposed to model fiscal responsibilities for.  And having not transferred 83% of our data certainly will look to our members like throwing good money after bad.  

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Certainly parallels can be drawn.  The key difference is that money was donated to us, not taken through the threat of violence. That changes the ethics and morality behind the entire decision tree on how/where to spend income. 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Our Policy Manual also encourages specific fundraising for that purpose, in the same section that creates the minimums and creates priority.  

 

"It shall be the goal of the LNC to completely pay off the office mortgage as quickly as possible, and in any case prior to the due date of the 10-year balloon payment. Towards that end the LNC shall budget a minimum of $60,000 in each odd-numbered year to pay down the principal until the mortgage balance is zero. Fundraising for this specific purpose shall be made a high priority. This provision does not preclude additional fundraising and prepayments in even-numbered years. " (emphasis added)

 

The Policy Manual specifically requires that we give high priority to raising money specifically to pay off the building.  Have we done so this year? Do we have a plan to do so next year?  

 

The particular section specifically mentions specific fundraising twice. While I think it is a reasonable assumption, based on the wording in the manual, that a 1-for-1 match would be sufficient, I proposed a 2-for-1 because I do think it's important to pay down the mortgage and felt it might be an acceptable compromise.

 

If we can create some priority - staff should exist - then we've already established that there's a balance to be struck.  With that established, I believe that we can best comply with the Policy Manual and with the desires of multiple LNC members by having the 2-for-1 matching scenario.

 

And if the membership wants this to be a high-priority project, then certainly they would put their money specifically toward that effort, would they not?

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-11-28 09:10, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

No it doesn't.  We have the 100K from the bequest that isn't part of our fundraising windfall.  We have the deficit from the last payment to catch up- putting us st around 150K.  Our policy manual - urges us- on our own- to get ahead.  Putting the extra amount ahead is what is reasonable and what I will be supporting.

 

No one has suggested there is not money for other things and this insures saved money for other things.  We can do a fundraiser next year with our fiscally responsible choice in Dec as a selling point centerpiece.

 

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

On Monday, November 28, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

 

I guess it depends on who your target audience is.  When I walk into a shop and their IT infrastructure is a decade old, my immediate thought is that the company doesn't have their priorities in order.  Certainly, I'm biased in that regard.  Smaller manufacturing businesses are notorious from being way out of date.

 

The Democratic Party provides websites for their candidates for a nominal fee. Why?  Because that way campaigns can focus on issues and real politicking, not spending excessive amounts of time on back-office work. They're out knocking on doors and building their base.

 

The Republican Party, through the Kochs, is building a massive database of voters for their Big Data project. Why?  Because that way they know what issues drive voters. They can micro-target messaging, making their outreach and GOTV more efficient.

 

The Libertarian Party currently has a mailing list that sends everything to a Google list so that people can subscribe to the Google list to watch.

 

If we are to appeal to the Millenial generation, we can't be running on a 286 in a basement.  Once upon a time, the LP was ahead of the game when it came to technology.  We have stagnated and let our competition overtake us. If our primary political opponents are crushing us on the phones and at the door, how do we ever expect to win?

 

When I became chair of LPKY in 2007, we had no IT infrastructure. We had a website that was put in place by the previous chair, that cost too much money, was poorly organized, and didn't do the job.  Thankfully, the situation isn't exactly parallel - while there are problems, we don't have to start over from scratch. But it will take time and investment to get the website to where it needs to be. That will happen.  Likewise, other parts of our operation need to have similar focus. 

 

I'm all about paying down debt. I absolutely love it, conceptually. I just don't want to see us cripple the party in 2017 in order to achieve the goal of paying off that debt.  

 

So here's what I'd propose, if we want to put over $200K toward the mortgage. Let's do a 2-for-1 donation match. We put $60K in the budget, as required. Subtracted from the proposed $207,500, that leaves $147,500. For ease of numbers, let's round that up to $50,000.  So, if we can raise $50,000 specifically for paying off the building, we will put $100,000 as the match.  Let's let our membership determine the projects on which they want us to spend the money.  

 

Does that seem reasonable? 

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

On 2016-11-28 08:31, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I would further note- if we make this payment now and make NO additional payments (which I do not support) because the 60k is needed next year (odd numbered year) - we will have freed future Libertarians from the balloon payment AND an amount in interest that would pay a good chunk of a ballot access drive.  In every scenario, this is the right choice.  And we would have only two more policy manual extra payments - 2017 and 2019- and the mortgage would be paid in full just by the 2020 election- a fantastic example for others.  We will have set up the next LNC for success.

 

And our fiscal responsibility can be used in our new member retention program as they can trust we are wise with funds.

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

On Monday, November 28, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no proposal to spend "all" of the discretionary monies.

 

And Hagan pointed out this is a way we can have access to the bulk of a bequest that the donor certainly wished we had access to.

 

The bequest money isn't available in that amount now for this OR that.  It is available for this.

 

Hagan's last option is the most prudent and responsible and does not require anything like an "all" scenario and doesn't burden the next decade of Libertarians with interest that the policy manual urged us to avoid in making more than the 60K extra- and here with the bequest we have the opportunity to access over 100K and have an unexpected windfall in new members.

 

If any other priority is given as well - new member retention must be up there as mentioned in emails leading up to the Sept meeting.

 

As for the website - well members were told that in 2006 too, and that data is still waiting. 

 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

On Monday, November 28, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.mo...@lpky.org> wrote:

 

My goal isn't to pull something over on people.  If nothing else, know that I am open with my personal thoughts on matters -- as you may have noticed -- and I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm a Libertarian; I don't believe in using force or fraud.

 

There are other IT issues beyond the website that I dare not mention on a public list; things that range from embarrassing to disabling. I'll be more than happy to discuss these issues in person in December. 

 

The new IT committee is taking over from a previous committee with an entirely different personnel makeup.  The new IT Committee, such as it exists at the moment, is far from ignoring the calls for repairs and changes to the website. This is a priority of everyone involved.  This is currently being done under staff direction, and they are working on it.  The website continues to be populated with important information, and will continue to evolve and have more information added/returned, in addition to other important website changes. (Ironically, I was trying to find out exactly when the building was purchased and couldn't because that information wasn't brought over. Heh.)  In sum, the website will get fixed to the best of our ability. 

 

But if all the discretionary income gets spent on the mortgage (which is not the worst way to spend it) then there won't be an opportunity to get other fixes in place.  And that's just IT.  I know there are Ballot Access drives in our future in 2017 - Arkansas and Ohio, specifically - and those won't be cheap.  Arkansas will be about $37,500 and Ohio will be about $255,000, based on 2016 validity rates and assuming no volunteer signatures or other sources of funding (which there will be, of course).

 

In my opinion, we need to really leverage 2016 to get a record-breaking amount of fundraising in the "after-year".  

 

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I have stated my position.  And assuming no earth-shattering new information or argument, how I intend to vote.  Rationale already given.  I have other motions and items that require my present attention.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

If people were looking for that amortization worksheet Daniel Wiener referenced, I dug it out of the LNC archives and attach it here.  

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Ken, I have been doing some thinking, and while I am not saying I support what I am about to say, I don't oppose it, and IF there is some compromise position (though with all due respect - when you say to satisfy the desires of some LNC members - you so far have been the only dissenting voice and are an alternate - we do not yet know what your regional representative thinks on the issue), using round numbers, this one:

We shorted 2015 by about 40K. 

We have about 105K that we can take from the bequest that would not otherwise be accessible.

That puts us at roughly 145K which would be satisfying our prior obligation AND accessing money that is not coming from any other line item next year (thus not shorting any other project).

So we were proposing paying another 55K.  If we did that, we could not make any further Wiener rule payments and still pay off early with no balloon.

We could allot this 55K, not as an extra "payment" but as the 2017 Wiener rule payment which we *already have to pay* if we are going to be compliant.   And we would be making an extra payment this year - only it is coming out of the bequest.  

So that is a 205K payment in 2017 which does not take away from anything else in extra payment.  And we would still be committed to the Wiener rule payment in 2019.

This is basically getting back to Sam's original proposal of $150K.  That is the minimum I would accept in light of this information.  We are obligation to do a 60K payment in 2017 - what is at issue is whether we do an "additional" 60K payment.  But we could even perhaps do that - depending on how the bequest rules are- we could make the 105K building fund this year and exhaust the Bequest in the next year and use that generous donor's money to get us more quickly out of this.  AND still fund-raise to make additional payments.

And this does not keep us from having funds for other projects.

I am not saying this is what I support but this is a reasonable path.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

While would like to have a mortgage balance of zero, I think added mortgage payments are something that should be considered AFTER we decide what needs to be funded in 2017.

There is going to be a proposal forthcoming from the LP of Ohio for a petition drive in 2017 to regain party status in Ohio. While I want to see the details of the proposal from the LPOH before I decide how I would vote on such a motion, I am predisposed to support such a motion. We need to try to maintain party status by earning 3% of the vote for Governor in Ohio in 2018, and I think it is very important that the LP respond to the bully boy tactics of the Republican Party of Ohio that got us kicked off the ballot. I am urging the LPOH to put a lot of skin in on this drive, and, to that end, being a native Ohioan, I have assumed personal responsibility for 750 gross signatures. (About 53,000 valid signatures will be needed.) I gathered about 100 sigs over Thanksgiving weekend and will do more over Christmas vacation. I will pay for what I don't gather.

I also intend to ask the LNC to authorize the Chairman to enter into a loan agreement of up to $25,000 with a potential Governor campaign in Virginia in 2017 to fund a paid petition drive, with repayment from the Campaign of 50% of funds raised until repayment in full has been made. I think it is highly likely that the LNC would be fully repaid. Even if I make such a motion, I will abstain on the vote, being from Virginia.

I think it is important to keep our occupancy costs in perspective. We were paying rent of over $10,000 per month at the Watergate. Our monthly mortgage payment is now about $3,000. We have done a great job reducing occupancy costs, regardless of how much more principal prepayment we do.

Bill Redpath

--------------------------------------------

On Tue, 11/29/16, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

To: "ken.mo...@lpky.org" <ken.mo...@lpky.org>
Cc: "Libertarian National Committee list" <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016, 1:23 PM

HarlosRegion 1

Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party

Radical Caucus



On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at
9:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
If people were looking for that amortization
worksheet Daniel Wiener referenced, I dug it out of the LNC
archives and attach it here.  
-- 
In
Liberty,Caryn Ann

HarlosRegion 1

Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party

--








In Liberty,


Caryn Ann
Harlos


Region 1 Representative,
Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,
Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.org


Communications Director, Libertarian Party of
Colorado


Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party
Radical Caucus


 


 


 


 

______________________________

_________________
Lnc-business mailing
list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org





______________________________
_________________
Lnc-business mailing
list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listi
nfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org




 

HarlosRegion 1

Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party

Radical Caucus








--
In
Liberty,Caryn Ann

HarlosRegion 1

Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party

Radical Caucus








--
In
Liberty,Caryn Ann

HarlosRegion 1

Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Har...@LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of

ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party
Radical Caucus





-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I have been a dissenting voice as well.  I am inclined to be positive towards this suggestion, but I don't want to commit myself without more time to think.  However, I stand by my desire to take it up after the budget, at which point it is possible I'd favor a larger amount than this.  

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ken, I have been doing some thinking, and while I am not saying I support what I am about to say, I don't oppose it, and IF there is some compromise position (though with all due respect - when you say to satisfy the desires of some LNC members - you so far have been the only dissenting voice and are an alternate - we do not yet know what your regional representative thinks on the issue), using round numbers, this one:

We shorted 2015 by about 40K. 

We have about 105K that we can take from the bequest that would not otherwise be accessible.

That puts us at roughly 145K which would be satisfying our prior obligation AND accessing money that is not coming from any other line item next year (thus not shorting any other project).

So we were proposing paying another 55K.  If we did that, we could not make any further Wiener rule payments and still pay off early with no balloon.

We could allot this 55K, not as an extra "payment" but as the 2017 Wiener rule payment which we *already have to pay* if we are going to be compliant.   And we would be making an extra payment this year - only it is coming out of the bequest.  

So that is a 205K payment in 2017 which does not take away from anything else in extra payment.  And we would still be committed to the Wiener rule payment in 2019.

This is basically getting back to Sam's original proposal of $150K.  That is the minimum I would accept in light of this information.  We are obligation to do a 60K payment in 2017 - what is at issue is whether we do an "additional" 60K payment.  But we could even perhaps do that - depending on how the bequest rules are- we could make the 105K building fund this year and exhaust the Bequest in the next year and use that generous donor's money to get us more quickly out of this.  AND still fund-raise to make additional payments.

And this does not keep us from having funds for other projects.

I am not saying this is what I support but this is a reasonable path.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynan...@gmail.com> wrote:

If people were looking for that amortization worksheet Daniel Wiener referenced, I dug it out of the LNC archives and attach it here.  

-- 

In Liberty,

From: Sam Goldstein <goldstei...@gmail.com>
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:11 AM
Subject: [Lnc-business] Added Mortgage Payment

 

I intend to make a motion at our next meeting to spend a good portion of our 2016 surplus to make a payment on the principal on our office mortgage.  

 

Not knowing our final numbers at this time lends some uncertainty to that number, but I would like to start the bidding at $150,000.  That amount ought to leave us in a very favorable position as to our ongoing reserve for unforeseen expenses over the next few years.

 

Does anyone want to offer a lower/higher amount?  If so, what is your reasoning.

 

Thanks and 

 

Live Free,

 

 

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

 

_______________________________________________

Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

 

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

My suggestion though would require paying the 105K (approx) during one year (this one most likely) and then having the re-set for what we can draw from the bequest next year.

Basically I am suggesting taking full advantage of what we can get from the bequest to put towards this.

This would seem to satisfy a lot of issues.

Again, not saying I support but it is an alternative I thought about. It seems (?) everyone is in agreement on the make-up we need to do from the 2015 shortfall.  And it seems like there might (?) be agreement on the 105K from the bequest.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Bill,

I echo your thoughts with Ohio.

On the funding issue - I keep bringing up - we have access to the bequest *for this* (and not other things) that makes it - to me - a relatively easy decision up to Sam's original "bid."  Though with the windfall, considering our Policy Manual statement, I do think we have an obligation to pay more.

On the Virginia thing, after the Moore incident, I am reluctant to hitch our financial support to any particular candidate (though this seems somewhat analogous to the Mark Miller situation) without having a more thorough vetting/requirements process.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Drawing money from the current bequest into any account other than the
operating account may have a negative impact on pending Federal
litigation.

-Nick

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Details? I know tangentially what you mean but not fully.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We are suing the Federal government over the limitations on how much
we can take from a bequest in a particular year. One of their
arguments is that we could take more if we put it into their special
segregated accounts (building, convention, and legal); we have argued
that we want it for operating funds to do political work, not to put
it in a special bucket.

-Nick

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Okay that's what I thought.  Yet I think the argument can still be made that we should have the right to put where we wish - but yes, a strategic legal question.

Not one I am sure is worth blowing a ton of interest on if this is the only way to get principle  paid down.